The US Supreme Court has become a shrine to latter day liberalism over the years, and it is only in recent times that President Bush has tried to redress the imbalance.
Of course these things take time and so it comes to pass that the Supreme Court has concluded that the Administration had overstepped its authority in setting up military tribunals to deal with the Jihadists at Gitmo. Amazingly, the ruling came in response to a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal, but demanding to be tried by a civilian tribunal or court martial, where proceedings would be more open and defendants would have greater access to the evidence against them.
Now, as Victor Hanson points out, we would be inviting thousands of lawyers and public defenders to argue, on behalf of their clients, that we are not in a real war but simply prosecuting common criminals. Numerous trials and appeals as costly and circus-like as the drawn-out spectacle of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) would likely follow. And, in the end, Europeans would still object, since the U.S. would be exposing foreign nationals to possible death-penalty sentences. So, in essence, we would have to set them all free, pay them compensation for their bother, and admit defeat in the war on terror if we are to win liberal and Islamic hearts and minds.
Bush is 100% right not to let the murderers go free. He should go to Congress and get their support for going back to the Supremes to change this atrocious decision. Of course as someone else has pointed out, in its judgement, the Supreme Court claims that the terms of the Geneva Convention apply to the Jihadi spawn at Gitmo. Well, according to the same Geneva Conventions, those fighting out of uniform or in a civilian area can be executed on the spot (or later I suppose?) Can we please force Bush to do that as well? Or is that some parts of Geneva apply but others don't - you know, the bits that might actually help us?